Pinned Discussion for Overall Server records

    By using our site, you accept the use of cookies to make your visit more pleasant, to offer you advertisements and contents tailored to your interests, to allow you to share content on social networks, and to create visit statistics for website optimisation. More information

    • MarkokraM wrote:

      Give dario some slack in here, he'll probably change it with all updates when all suggestions are collected, that's why this post is here. I presume it is better to discuss those things properly in here rather than accusing him of dictatorship over hall of fame, especially because he took it over yesterday. Maybe with more suggestions it will look better than before :)
      Although i might be wrong about it, we'll see.
      So why not just mark it as "data under review" rather than remove it all together ?

      Plenty of players here who could then help with any questions
    • I agree that there are better ways to do it, but it is what it is. 1-2 days of hall of fame down won't harm anyones reputation too much, especiall because as we see it wasn't properly updated since summer.
    • The WWK records have been updated yesterday and will be updated again for UK2 hammers as soon as I finish updating them. It took me most of my free time last weekend to collate and sort them.

      Full records for UK1 weren't kept as it was during the time of change over, but I have got full records for UK3 and UK5. Updating the overall server records was what I planned to start this weekend, it isn't a five minute job. However, it would seem that events have overtaken me. I'll still collate all the server information and redo the overall server records but it would have been easier and less time consuming to be able to start with all the records instead of only some of them.

      I'm more than happy to still help Dario with this section, but I need data that has been removed and therefore am asking for it to be replaced before any decisions are made on how to go forward.

      Stand out Award 2017 UK
    • dario wrote:

      Dear Players,

      I would like to discuss about the representation of artifacts details in HoF. So don't consider it as a fight against the community. After coming to UK domain, I checked the history of HoF and the information about artifact information is not consistent across different threads. So my first question was why it is not consistent? (May be the data was removed before capturing it)

      Second concern I have is about the way it is represented.The current representation is in such a way that the name of the player who held the artifact at the end only is only glorified. The player who held it in between is no way mentioned. From my perspective the artifact is a property of alliance, because they are captured and rotated in the alliance to upheld the supremacy of the same in the thread. So the unique artifacts were rotated some many times within alliance. (Kindly highlight me if it not like this here). Same goes to WW plan, it might be shifted to different players based on how server is progressing. So I would like have an open discussion with community about the representation of the same.

      The artifacts are tools which are used alliance to shape there game as it progress. For example player A, who is a cap hammer player, want unique Trainer so his name can come in HoF. But there is a good anvil in the alliance who can utilize the artifact very well. So there might be lots of personal scarifies to upheld interest of alliance. So I am little confused whether the representation of the same in HoF undermine the work did by other???

      Kindly discuss the same and let us see how the complete UK community think about the same.

      Regards
      Dario

      Dario, the only problem here is you have removed the post and it took the community asking the question of why it was removed before you started this debate. Surely you realise that the best way to have gone about a genuine discussion would be to have started it BEFORE removing the thread in question? The UK hall of fame stats that have been recorded are second to none and a huge amount of time has clearly been spent detailing this info. These should never be removed without at least first asking the opinion of the community that add towards these records, please think about how much time someone has spent to arrange all these records.
    • I have a feeling it was just deleted out and they didn't think "what happens if we need to get it back?"

      Also on the uk3 note, I tried to take the unique fool off you right at the end just to piss you guys off, attack got through but completely forgot I already had a large storage because I hadn't used it in so long :(
      What reports are you meant to show off if you're a defensive player? :(

      My name is Alex, not Mark :)
    • The feedback till now agree to one point that the artifacts should glorify alliance instead of Individual players. Kindly correct me if I got it wrong.

      The current way of representation is glorifying alliance as well as the final player that hold it. The is undermining the work did by other. The way it should represent should be more focused on alliance. Did community agree to it or not? So my plan is to come up with a new format for the same in future.
    • dario wrote:

      The feedback till now agree to one point that the artifacts should glorify alliance instead of Individual players. Kindly correct me if I got it wrong.

      The current way of representation is glorifying alliance as well as the final player that hold it. The is undermining the work did by other. The way it should represent should be more focused on alliance. Did community agree to it or not? So my plan is to come up with a new format for the same in future.
      Is it a requirement that CM's ignore all negative comments involving them? It amazes me how easily you and TK just throw them aside...
    • dario wrote:

      The feedback till now agree to one point that the artifacts should glorify alliance instead of Individual players. Kindly correct me if I got it wrong.

      The current way of representation is glorifying alliance as well as the final player that hold it. The is undermining the work did by other. The way it should represent should be more focused on alliance. Did community agree to it or not? So my plan is to come up with a new format for the same in future.
      Sure Dario, by my guest, come up with a new idea and format, no one has any problem with that as long as it is done fairly and constructively. But until then, perhaps you should leave the current format as it is? As far as has been proven by the comments on this thread, it seems no one really had a problem with the current system, so I'm not entirely sure why you have took this upon yourself as a best use of your time.
    • @dario, I am not sure that I would refer to the HoF as glorifying players or alliances, strange choice of words to describe a UK thread that has proved very popular. Is that the reason why it's being changed I wonder??

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Templar Knight ().

    • Since it seems this HoF is no longer going to be updated other than with the bare minimum, and the mess that resulted from the forum merge is never going to be cleaned up, would it be possible to provide a link here to a fan site where there is a fully up to date HoF for players to refer to?

      Stand out Award 2017 UK
    • HoF should just be a list of facts and stats, in as many categories as possible. Let people infer whatever glory there is to be had from it subjectively, based on what they consider to be the most important categories? If we have the data for who held the arte and what alliance they were in and how many each alliance held, why not find a way to present all that data clearly?
    • In that case, you might as well just archive the entire server statistics like Getter does. Personally, I would love to see that happen. However, I still think that players want something to aim for so some sort of HoF is good.

      Stand out Award 2017 UK
    • Mercedes wrote:

      Since it seems this HoF is no longer going to be updated other than with the bare minimum, and the mess that resulted from the forum merge is never going to be cleaned up, would it be possible to provide a link here to a fan site where there is a fully up to date HoF for players to refer to?
      is anyone going to reply to this?

      Stand out Award 2017 UK
    • Mercedes wrote:

      Mercedes wrote:

      Since it seems this HoF is no longer going to be updated other than with the bare minimum, and the mess that resulted from the forum merge is never going to be cleaned up, would it be possible to provide a link here to a fan site where there is a fully up to date HoF for players to refer to?
      is anyone going to reply to this?

      Lol.

      As if they will, they are useless and they couldn’t care less about the uk domain.

      Not sure why you keep trying to get the Forum to work like it should, it’s a lost cause
    • Hi everyone, UK4 that finished yesterday goes into the rankings for fastest servers ever.

      Not 100% sure where it will rank, the winning alliance kept putting in ridiculous WW delays to stop it coming 2nd :D
      What reports are you meant to show off if you're a defensive player? :(

      My name is Alex, not Mark :)
    • notorious crunchie wrote:

      Mercedes wrote:

      Mercedes wrote:

      Since it seems this HoF is no longer going to be updated other than with the bare minimum, and the mess that resulted from the forum merge is never going to be cleaned up, would it be possible to provide a link here to a fan site where there is a fully up to date HoF for players to refer to?
      is anyone going to reply to this?
      Lol.

      As if they will, they are useless and they couldn’t care less about the uk domain.

      Not sure why you keep trying to get the Forum to work like it should, it’s a lost cause
      I'm not allowed to post the link as apparently it doesn't fit the definition of a fan site, although I'm not sure which definition TK is using as it fits both the Wikipedia definition as well as Travian's own policy. I guess there must be another, secret definition that only certain people are allowed to know about.

      However, rather than getting banned for letting people know where they can actually look at a HoF for the UK domain rather than the mess here, if anyone wants to PM me or poke me on skype if you have me as a contact, I can show you where to find it.

      Thank you to everyone who sent me the info for UK4, I'll have that updated this evening :)

      Stand out Award 2017 UK